Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word selection implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organisms proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotics effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b.[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested. Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin,A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity, Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. Stephen Jay Gould,The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Vol. 86, JuneJuly 1977, p. 28.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility.[See Rick McGuire,Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria, Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. Francisco J. Ayala,The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word selection implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

This is only correct if you accept speciation. If a population splits into two species then there is a *temporary* reduction in characteristics, but not if one takes both populations overall into account. You've argued yourself into a corner here, either accept speciation to support your claim of reduced variability, or accept increase of variation. Catch 22, you lose. And since no-one claims natural selection itself is responsible for producing new genes (which HAS been observed btw) you have shown you haven't learned about the subject you're trying to critique. Neither has the person you're copy-pasting from.

Pahu wrote:

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), ora mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organisms proteins

That one there would be called EVOLUTION. However, note that your source is attempting to rule out evolution a priori rather than investigate the possibility. Unfortunately neither of you know how.

Pahu wrote:

ora mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, ora damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotics effectiveness even more (d), ora few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).b.[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested. Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin,A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity, Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. Stephen Jay Gould,The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Vol. 86, JuneJuly 1977, p. 28.c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima,How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127135.

Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility.[See Rick McGuire,Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria, Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. Francisco J. Ayala,The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that we have observed instances of evolutionary adaptation to pesticides and antibiotics in other cases, which is why I suspect Brown is concentrating on these other examples.

Pahu wrote:

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Walt Brown is a reality-denying Young Earth Creationist and former NASA engineer, not a scientist. He also writes Christian apologetics which destroys all life on Earth in numerous different ways which requires the application of Godmagic to rescue his baseless claims, hence any scientific claims he makes should be taken with a pinch of and truck full of salt.

Also, as this has ALREADY been pointed out to you, and that your other previous posts you spammed have already been addressed with no rebuttal so far, it is dishonest of you to continue spamming even more religious apologetics nonsense that you don't even understand anyway.

So perhaps you can tell us why people like you who attack evolution pretty much ALWAYS have to rely on dishonesty, lies and deception?

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos Islands are another example of natural selection producing micro-(not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g).

f.Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwins proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous. Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274275.

It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues. Michael J. Behe,Molecular Machines, Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the Macroevolution Conference was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a turning point in the history of evolutionary theory. Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin,Evolution Theory under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate. Ibid., p. 884.

Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. But then how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead.

As stated earlier, micro + time &#8800; macro.

One could argue at this point that such minor changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument ...[examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogyespecially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change. Michael Thomas,Stasis Considered, Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

Pahu, before you can present more religious apologetics you have to deal with the fact that your foundations have already been deconstructed, so until addressed, all that follows falls.

Especially when you invoke two different creationists with RADICALLY opposing views: one who thinks Goddidit with magic 6,000 years ago and definitely did not use evolution even though evolution is a requirement due to global flood, and one who thinks Goddidit with magic billions of years ago, using evolution, and that God is now dead.

So again I point out, since your "scientific" alternative is MAGIC why the hypocrisy on your part by claiming science debunks evolution, despite the fact it quite clearly does not?

Answer - Creationists pretend the 9th Commandment does not apply to them.

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

a.Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation. Ernst Mayr,Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 2526 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,... Ayala, p. 63.

Quote-mining evolutionary biologists who disagree with your position is also dishonest. However since your premise has already been deconstructed you can now safely admit you got bupkis without shocking anyone, including yourself.

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

b.The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Theodosius Dobzhansky,On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors,Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10.(Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 .)

Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. C. P. Martin,A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Ibid. p. 103.

[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment. Ibid. p. 100.

If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. W. R. Thompson,Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw "]<quoted text>Page 2170Langoliers wrote:<quoted text>Just like you were clearly wrong about this post and would not admit it."Doctor Who Two wrote:<quoted text>I clearly stated who I was talking about.It's right there in the post "Atheist"You can't man up on clear proof that you were wrong. You can't read minds stick to reading post. You cannot insert what I did not post.This is clear evidence that you're one of those that cannot except the truth even when it bitch slaps you in the face!"<quoted text>Page 2184Subduction Zone wrote:<quoted text>No, I am sorry. DWT was clearly lying back then. His meaning was clear.<quoted text>[/QUOTE]

Holy shit, you and your friends butts must still be hurting from that interchange. That was over a month ago and all I really remember about it was that the meaning of the creatards was clear and I called them out for their lying.

... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesnt affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden,Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 1819.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

Even if we didnt have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itjust as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin),Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 1920.

The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration...[emphasis in original] Sewall Wright,The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

The Law of BiogenesisSpontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesnt begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.[continue]

I didn't observe God making Adam and Eve. But in this case, it's completely true. In fact, anyone who wishes to, can access the Heavenly Library to check out how it was done and recreate the Creation at will and find the blueprints for the world.

The plans are in the central office in the cellar (bring a flashlight.) and the stairs may be out of order. Look in the lavatory (disregard the sign "Beware the Leopard") for a locked filing cabinet. It's so easy, anyone can do it.

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

c.There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species. N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.[emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations. Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann,Lynn Margulis: Sciences Unruly Earth Mother, Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. Richard B. Goldschmidt,Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. Frank B. Salisbury,Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we dont see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 6768.

For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

Mutations 3Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.Lethal mutations outnumber viaibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262265.... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesnt affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden,Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 1819.However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!Even if we didnt have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itjust as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin),Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 1920.The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration...[emphasis in original] Sewall Wright,The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Pahu, Good information. Well researched and I totally agree. NAtural selection is an enemy of evolution story telling. I notice on this forum your opposition has nothing substantial to say. It's interesting, when a stone is thrown into a pack of wild dogs, the one who yelps the loudest is the one who got hit.

I worked in Civil Court for a local country years ago, and one lawsuit involved the Transcendental Meditation folks being sued. The most mind-boggling piece of evidence was a thick, 500-page statistical study that purported to prove that TM actually had an effect on the local crime rate.

In spite of the truly absurd premise of that study, it was very scholarly and involved a hell of a lot complex statistical analysis, citations from scientific texts, and other pretentious 'evidence'. People with a lot of money at stake can really crank out pretentious crap to support just about any absurd premise.

*REAL* scientists (the ones who go to MIT and CalTech) are maybe 97-98% in support of evolution. There simply is no support whatsoever for evolution among the real scientific community. The insane boilerplate copy-n-pasted by Pahu is exactly the sort of silly, pseudo-scientific crap that you'd expect from Cretinists who are trying to make their absurd nonsense sound plausible to the non-educated.

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a.Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory... Nilsson, p. 1186.

In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the worldflies which produce a new generation every eleven daysthey have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.